Dexter, your list above is LAUGHABLE. This whole discussion is STUPID. YOU should be ashamed to call yourself a Packer fan.

BRETT FAVRE IS THE GREATEST QUARTERBACK/THE GREATEST PLAYER IN NFL HISTORY. HE WILL BE THAT UNTIL GOD-WILLING, AARON RODGERS SURPASSES HIM.

Everything else here is irrelevant bullshit. Case closed, end of discussion - something I almost never do, I hereby stop reading or discussing the topic.

It is a disgrace to rank Favre above Hutson who changed the league from a running to a passing league. Before Hutson, everyone ran the Notre Dame box formation. After, nobody did.

There has never been another player to totally change the game like Hutson. He was as good as the next 3 best WRs of his day combined. His record stood for almost 50 years. Only broken when they went to 16 games. If Hutson played 16 games a year and had the option of having his knee surgically repaired like Jerry Rice, he would still hold every receiving record.

Hutson was the Babe Ruth of Baseball.

Bart Starr is the greatest post season QB in the history of the NFL.

Comparing Starr to Favre is a joke. Starr didn't choke 9 out of 10 years.

I would like to point out that my list seems to be slightly out of order.

It is actually there for a reason and I just realized that I probably should explain why.

Lynn Dickey is ranked #92 and his rating above average is listed at 4.95 which should put him at 61 over all.

I changed his career passer rating to his Packers passer rating.

He normally would be ranked #92 but I wanted to show how close he was to Favre to show that it wasn't really Favre who changed the fortunes of the Packers.

It was Harlan, Wolf and Holmgren. When they left, so did a lot of Favre's success.

To go back to the point of the thread and show that Favre was over rated.

That is not to say Favre wasn't great at times. He obviously was. That isn't my contention.

Favre was so up and down, he could have a year with a rating in the 70s, in fact he had 7 of them, or he could have a year with a rating in the 90s.

For his whole career, Favre sucked badly enough and often enough to bring his average down to tied with Trent Green. Since his great years were so great, it took a lot of suckage to bring him down that far.

Since the length of his career is so incredibly important to some people in saying how great he was, how can you completely disregard 40% of his career?

I would like to point out that my list seems to be slightly out of order.

It is actually there for a reason and I just realized that I probably should explain why.

Lynn Dickey is ranked #92 and his rating above average is listed at 4.95 which should put him at 61 over all.

I changed his career passer rating to his Packers passer rating.

He normally would be ranked #92 but I wanted to show how close he was to Favre to show that it wasn't really Favre who changed the fortunes of the Packers.

It was Harlan, Wolf and Holmgren. When they left, so did a lot of Favre's success.

To go back to the point of the thread and show that Favre was over rated.

That is not to say Favre wasn't great at times. He obviously was. That isn't my contention.

Favre was so up and down, he could have a year with a rating in the 70s, in fact he had 7 of them, or he could have a year with a rating in the 90s.

For his whole career, Favre sucked badly enough and often enough to bring his average down to tied with Trent Green. Since his great years were so great, it took a lot of suckage to bring him down that far.

Since the length of his career is so incredibly important to some people in saying how great he was, how can you completely disregard 40% of his career?

I don't know why I even bother to reply to this nonsense, but I got nothing to do right now except watch TV, and the computer is in front of the TV.

I would NEVER say a negative word about either Don Hutson or Bart Starr. What you say about them is basically all true. Hutson certainly would be among the very greatest all-time players. Starr is absolutely number one depending how you define the category. It is my contention, though, that when you are talking GREATEST, you need to include longevity, and you need to emphasize numerical records - yardage, TDs, completions, etc., and you shouldn't over-emphasize playoff performance. When somebody piles up the most yards and the most TD passes - arguably the two most important categories - at the most important position, THAT makes him the GREATEST. And if he sets a record for consecutive games that may never be broken, given today's standards for injuries, that's the frosting on the cake.

I just can't help myself from commenting again about your idiotic list. First, can you say copy and paste? I don't even believe its your work. You know enough to rank guys like George Ratterman and Tommy Thompson, etc.? Come on! And your BASIS is rating compared to when they played? That's real objective! Comparison based on exactly WHAT at the time they played? I said earlier, you seem to not be able to distinguish between "greatest" and "best". Somebody ought to make side by side lists of each.

Ranking the top five BEST QBs is not so easy, and a lot more subjective. Basically, I'd call "best" the QB that would give you the best talent and knack for winning games - in his era and weighted by the quality of the team around them. I'll take the risk of being called a homer and put Aaron Rodgers at #1 (are you gonna rag on that one also? hahahaha). Otto Graham, Joe Namath, Roger Staubach, Steve Young, Tom Brady those names come to mind as among the best. Of the top five GREATEST, the only two near the top of BEST IMO would be Marino and P. Manning.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans. If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

As far as the Packers go, I'd put more stock in the value of Reggie White in context. At the time, other coaches would threaten to send a player to Green Bay as punishment. Black players did not want to come to Green Bay. In addition to his play, he single-handedly changed the perception of the team and city of Green Bay. That was priceless.

Your love for Brett is certainly understandable, but you are also old enough and smart enough to put Lord Favre in context. Brett and his agent got you by the brain-cells, man.

Bart Starr never rolled that way, either as a player or a former player. I could make a legitimate argument that Bart Starr MADE Vince Lombardi, and he did it in his usual quiet fashion, as that is what Bart Starr did, as an example. Bart was a true field general on that 100 yards. You know that, you could feel the intellect on your tv.

damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.

I don't know why I even bother to reply to this nonsense, but I got nothing to do right now except watch TV, and the computer is in front of the TV.

I would NEVER say a negative word about either Don Hutson or Bart Starr. What you say about them is basically all true. Hutson certainly would be among the very greatest all-time players. Starr is absolutely number one depending how you define the category. It is my contention, though, that when you are talking GREATEST, you need to include longevity, and you need to emphasize numerical records - yardage, TDs, completions, etc., and you shouldn't over-emphasize playoff performance. When somebody piles up the most yards and the most TD passes - arguably the two most important categories - at the most important position, THAT makes him the GREATEST. And if he sets a record for consecutive games that may never be broken, given today's standards for injuries, that's the frosting on the cake.

I just can't help myself from commenting again about your idiotic list. First, can you say copy and paste? I don't even believe its your work. You know enough to rank guys like George Ratterman and Tommy Thompson, etc.? Come on! And your BASIS is rating compared to when they played? That's real objective! Comparison based on exactly WHAT at the time they played? I said earlier, you seem to not be able to distinguish between "greatest" and "best". Somebody ought to make side by side lists of each.

Ranking the top five BEST QBs is not so easy, and a lot more subjective. Basically, I'd call "best" the QB that would give you the best talent and knack for winning games - in his era and weighted by the quality of the team around them. I'll take the risk of being called a homer and put Aaron Rodgers at #1 (are you gonna rag on that one also? hahahaha). Otto Graham, Joe Namath, Roger Staubach, Steve Young, Tom Brady those names come to mind as among the best. Of the top five GREATEST, the only two near the top of BEST IMO would be Marino and P. Manning.

Copy and paste?

Do you have any clue where I got the list?

Before you accuse someone of plagiarism, you better have a shred of evidence.

I know for a fact that you do not.

The reason you couldn't have any evidence what so ever is that I wrote the formula and created the spreadsheet myself. It took me quite a few hours.

You and your random insupportable opinions are worse than useless.

Namath was below average. Elway was a little above average. Not even as good as Lynn Dickey was for the Packers.

Career stats are a joke. Is Vinny Testeverde a top 10 all time greatest QB? He is top 10 in yards, completion and TDs,

Like I said, would you rather have an average QB for 20 years or the best ever for 15. Because that average will beat the best ever in career stats. Is your position that you can be the greatest and average at the same time?

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.